Posted
by
timothy
on Saturday April 05, 2014 @03:15PM
from the disrupting-the-moral-purity-of-the-cuban-autocracy dept.

We mentioned a few days ago the USAID-funded SMS social network that was connecting Cubans against the wishes of the Cuban government. Now Glen Greenwald's The Intercept has more on this kind of back-channel government intervention via what he characterizes as "the Internet propaganda bucket." Advocatus Diaboli (1627651) writes with an excerpt: "These ideas–discussions of how to exploit the internet, specifically social media, to surreptitiously disseminate viewpoints friendly to western interests and spread false or damaging information about targets–appear repeatedly throughout the archive of materials provided by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. Documents prepared by NSA and its British counterpart GCHQ–and previously published by The Intercept as well as some by NBC News–detailed several of those programs, including a unit devoted in part to "discrediting" the agency's enemies with false information spread online.

The documents in the archive show that the British are particularly aggressive and eager in this regard, and formally shared their methods with their U.S. counterparts. One previously undisclosed top-secret document–prepared by GCHQ for the 2010 annual "SIGDEV" gathering of the "Five Eyes" surveillance alliance comprising the UK, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and the U.S.–explicitly discusses ways to exploit Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and other social media as secret platforms for propaganda."

It has been said that the essence of Britishness is fair play. Speaking as a public school educated (that's private boarding school, to you Yanks) toff, I can say with certainty that this is not true at all. The essence of Britishness is hypocrisy. In our hearts we are not standard-bearers of freedom and democracy, but temporarily embarrassed imperialists. And those of us whose mathematical aptitude did not win us a place in the City find themselves landed with a Civil Service job, a job with much the same

Let everyone speak, but control the podium supply. Make podiums expensive, but give them away free to those saying what you want to be heard. Use this to control the discussion. Give the illusion that every position you think is important is supported by a rational majority and opposed by a fringe of maniacs. If a subject isn't important to your agenda but is contentious, keep it constantly in the public sphere and use it to keep people divided against each other. Say as little as you can yourself.

Bolivian President Evo Morales has said he will expel the US Agency for International Development (USAID). Mr Morales accused the agency of seeking to "conspire against" the Bolivian people and his government. US state department spokesman Patrick Ventrell rejected the allegations as "baseless and unfounded".

About the US cyberattack on Cuba. First of all, it failed, as every US attack on Cuba has failed. Second, the US puts form over content--the idea that if you get people to follow your Twitter feed sports scores, when you say "OK! Everyone out to the Plaza to overthrow the government!" that hundreds of thousands of people will show up and try to overthrow the government, even if they didn't know they wanted to (which in Cuba most people don't). Third, the continuing destruction of internet trust on the part of the US. And fourth, their willingness to put people at risk without telling them they're putting them at risk.

The real question is, to what extent was the US involved in other countries? Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Turkey, Ukraine? Different counties, same scenario. Social media play a major role at the beginning and during each uprising.

Which also raises the question whether blocking social media is an act of censorship or an attempt to neutralize foreign involvement in internal affairs.

Please... I lived it. But the situation is a bit different here: radio free Europe, Voice of America, BBC etc. were mass media, they claimed higher ground and freedom from government censorship, but they still had owners, countries of origin and so on.

Social networks are controlled differently, the agents there pose as common people, changing and influencing the opinion of those who read but doesn't post (i.e. the majority of users). Often post from social networks are used in the western media to form an o

"Castro" didn't expel anyone. When the wealthy lost the sources of their wealth--ie, it became the property of all instead of the property of the few--they voluntarily left and went to a country that values getting rich at the expense of others, chiefly the U.S.

Which also raises the question whether blocking social media is an act of censorship or an attempt to neutralize foreign involvement in internal affairs.

It can well be both. And foreign involvement in the so called internal affairs can be a good thing, too. No, you are not free to oppress your own citizens. And no, the USA is not always in the right. But neither are the governments of the countries you listed.

This is just a mountain made out of a molehill by leftists who are fans of the government of Cuba and don't like when Western governments try to undermine it. I have news for them: doing things like this is the intelligence agencies' *job*. They're supposed to spy; that's why they're called spy agencies, and Cuba couldn't be a more deserving target.

If Cuba doesn't do such things itself, it's only because of lack of budget in these post-Soviet days, not lcak of scruples. (Remember when Cuba used to send "

"Yawn" indeed. What baffles me is how anyone think this differs from any other propaganda campaigns throughout human history. It is because it's "on a computer", which means that most people will forget all precedent and pretend that it's something new?

In particular, the mass media here and everywhere else has always cooperated with the wishes of the people in power. That's part of the price of staying in business, regardless of what your local laws (or Constitutions) might say. The distribution of i

It differs from other propaganda because it's happening HERE On/. There are establishment trolls all over this place trying to shape public opinion. How can you act so blasse, You say this is nothing new, but clearly it must be, because this concept didn't even occur to you! You don't even mention it. So spare me your lazy yawns so long as you lazily look past the elephant in the room.
Waiting for cold fjord to post here.

Well, I didn't mention the propaganda on/. because it didn't occur to me that anyone would think it special. The astroturfers and other propagandists have been here since before I had an account, and a lot of their work is so blatant that it's hard to miss. So it's not that the propaganda here didn't occur to me; it's more like I thought it such a cheap shot that I'd be criticized (and possibly downloaded) for wasting reader time by mentioning something so obvious.

Corporate astroturfing is one thing, but the matter being discussed in this thread is one of paid government shills. You're insisting this is nothing new, which is incorrect--the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 has enabled domestic propaganda for the first time since the cold war.
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.... [foreignpolicy.com]
Yes, paid trolls on forums IS new. And it's clear you don't give a shit, because again, you won't even acknowledge the issue. You aren't the least bit concerned when dozens of posts of "fu

Maybe it dosn't differ from the other propaganda, but that dosn't mean it should be done. No one likes any goverment misleading them for their own motivations, even if you do it the most, or for the longest, or if other countries do it do, it will still piss off the public.

Actually it gives Cuban citizens a non-governmental channel they can use to communicate with one another. Such communication doesn't necessarily need to be political in nature. Twitter was born out of the efforts to provide Iranians with a way to communicate that could bypass the government controls.

This is just a mountain made out of a molehill by leftists who are fans of the government of Cuba and don't like when Western governments try to undermine it. I have news for them: doing things like this is the intelligence agencies' *job*. They're supposed to spy; that's why they're called spy agencies, and Cuba couldn't be a more deserving target.

I have news for you: USAID is *not* an intelligence agency. From their website under "What We Do":

"USAID is the lead U.S. Government agency that works to end extreme global poverty and enable resilient, democratic societies to realize their potential."

For a second, I thought you might've simply posted in the wrong thread...but you didn't, did you. So you ARE an idiot.

I have news for you: The Intelligence Agencies use other agencies as cover for their activities. USAID has a long, long history of being used for intelligence purposes. In was an open secret even before documents were released in 2007 that proved it. Countries routinely kicked USAID out for spying, like Eritrea in 1995.

I'd rather live in Cuba then some of Americas right wing allies such as Saudi Arabia or their right wing puppet countries such as Haiti. Now you might look at Saudi Arabia as a libertarian right wing paradise where the citizens don't pay taxes and can do what ever they want as long as they follow the social mores which comes naturally but I don't like the slavery. And of course in Haiti you're free to struggle to get a job for $3 a day, save and become rich but the truth is it is hell on Earth for most of i

I don't mind a government overseas propaganda division, really. It's one of the few effective counters against countries that operate their own censorship and propaganda systems. It's the sneaking around that I really don't like. Be honest about it.

One may wonder, how many of those UK and US tweets were from Ukrainians living in these countries (US has a rather large Ukrainian diaspora, the UK doesn't) and how many were associated with intelligence agencies. Interesting are the blips on the map from Bahrain at the crucial moments.

At the very start he turned over all his data to a few journalists (Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, etc.) and they are the ones who choose to publish articles based on the data he gave to them. Snowden has said he doesn't retain any of the documents or data himself, and has no control over what is published or not. That's entirely up to the journalists.

Every story he places on theintercept.org gets pages of mentions on google news. But please, keep peddling your lonely illusion that no one cares. No one will buy it, of course--the fact that you trolls have to fill this place with your nonsense shows just how hypocritical your claims of "no one cares!" really are.

Let's be blunt here. The purpose of this program was never to in any way seriously affect the Cuban regieme. The purpose of this program, like so many others at the NSA, was to "legitimize" bonuses and to buy new Cadillacs for NSA managers and senior officers. If General Alexander's Star Trek office revealed one thing, it is that the NSA has a culture of gorging at the public trough.

The US is supposedly selling Democracy, free speech, and freedom of the press.

Government propaganda, particularly covert government propaganda, has no place in Democracy. By using these methods to influence foreign populations not only is the US is undercutting its own message, they're doing through the agency (USAID) that is supposed to be spreading that message.

This is why sunlight is essential, because without it governments fall victim to group think and short sighted objectives and lose the ability to

and American imperialism is alive and well. I praise Cuba for their continued heroic resistance to the great evil in their backyard. It must greatly anger the American empire that they cannot break a small island nation 90 miles off the coast of Florida.

It's worse then that. Cuba is the symbol of American Imperialism. When they first decided to become a major player, they planned a war with Spain, did a false flag operation, surprised and defeated Spain and made Cuba a puppet state in the name of freedom and gave it to the Mafia to run. Then those awful Cubans revolted, threw out Batista (sp?) and did awful things like giving the average person shoes and free medical. The truth is that in that part of the world, the average Cuban is better off then lets sa

Not to mention the economy where workers are paid on average $19/month and lack even basic necessities and cannot legally change jobs, move, own property, own a cellphone or a computer without government permit etc etc.

Yes they are better of than Haiti, the country that compares badly even with worst African countries, so you got that one ri